Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

301/2010

Mrs. Anitha Thilakaraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hyundai Motors India Limited & others - Opp.Party(s)

J.Subramaniam

05 Jul 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 19.07.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 05.07.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.301/2010

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 05^TH DAY OF JULY 2019

                                 

Mrs. Anitha Thilakaraj,

W/o. Mr. Thilakaraj,

Old No.44, New No.2, First Cross Street,

Kasthuribai Nagar,

Adyar,

Chennai – 600 020.                                                        .. Complainant.                      

                                                                                       ..Versus..

1. Hyundai Motor India Limited,

Rep. by its Manager,

Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park,

Irrungattukottai,

Sriperumbudur Taluk,

Kancheepuram District – 602 105.

 

2. M/s. Kun Hyundai,

Rep. by its Manager,

Kun Auto Company Private Limited,

C48, 2^nd Avenue, Anna Nagar East,

Chennai – 600 102.

 

3. M/s. Kun Hyundai,

Rep. by its Manager,

Kun Auto Company Private Limited,

No.5, Vasantha Press Road,

Arunachalapuram,

Adyar,

Chennai – 600 020.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                  : M/s. J. Subramaniam

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3 : M/s. M.B. Gopalan & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.4,60,300/- being the value of  the vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for inconvenience and hardship with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that on 24.09.2009, she purchased the impugned i10 Hyundai car from the 2^nd opposite party, Dealer of the 1^st opposite party for a consideration of Rs.4,60,300/- as per the Tax Invoice issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant submits that before purchasing the car, the complainant saw an advertisement of the opposite parties that an i10 car will give a mileage of 19.81 kilo meters per litre of petrol.  The complainant submits that she purchased the car only for the purpose of saving mileage. The opposite parties after publishing the advertisement apprached the complainant that the impugned car will give a minimum mileage of 14 kmpl in city.   But after driving the car with full tank fuel it gives only 6.3 kms.  The complainant addressed a letter to the opposite party on 20.01.2010 detailing the above, but there has been no response from the opposite party. The complainant submits that she sent a legal notice dated:18.06.2010 which has been returned  unserved.  The complainant produced the car with the opposite parties service station repeatedly for different types of check up including general check up and expended a sum of Rs.36,949/-.  The complainant submits that all the opposite parties are jointly and severally responsible to reimburse the amount of Rs.36,949/- which has been paid as service charges by the complainant.   The act of the opposite parties 1 to 3 amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 1 to 3 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 to 3 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties 1 to 3 state that the advertisement regarding the i10 Hyundai car and the mileage is made in a misleading manner by the complainant.   As if the opposite parties had promised that such mileage would be given by every vehicle irrespective of crucial factors such as the terrain of operation, skill of driver, vehicle maintenance, fuel quality etc will play a vital role in performance.  The advertisement of the opposite parties truly states that the performance and mileage of the vehicle in ARAI (Automotive Research Association of India) test conditions.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 state that every vehicle manufacturer, before launching a new model vehicle into the market has to subject the vehicle to tests in compliance with Motor Vehicle Rules under guidance of ARAI namely emission test, fuel efficiency test etc are conducted by ARAI under standard test conditions and a Certificate will be issued subject to the specific conditions including a disclaimer as follows:

“A. The values declared above are the extract of the result that have been obtained in a mandatory emission test specified in Rule 115 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 under controlled conditions using a reference fuel at an agency authorized by Rule 126 of the said Rules.  The values obtained by users will differ from these values due to infinite variables such as driving habits, road and traffic conditions, fuel quality, maintenance practices, loading pattern, ambient conditions and usual engineering tolerance on components and so on.

B. The values declared above have been obtained on one of the variants displayed in the make/ model. Users may obtain different values on other variants of this make/model.

C. Further, the vehicle manufacturer and its authorized dealer shall not be liable for any difference in fuel consumption values due to aforesaid variables and no claim shall lie thereon”.

3.     The opposite parties 1 to 3 state that the fuel efficiency figures are based on verified and certificate values, and not any imaginary or arbitrary value as the 1^st opposite party may choose.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 state that the advertisement has valid basis.  At the same time, it is clearly represented that the mileage was under ARAI test conditions.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 state that the complainant cannot charge the opposite party as having published any incorrect information, through such advertisement.    The opposite parties 1 to 3 state that the complaint does  not reveal the facts fully and correctly in regard to her vehicle and its service history.   The allegations that the complainant’s vehicle was giving a poor mileage is strongly disputed and denied by the opposite parties 1 to 3.  Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 to 3.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the opposite parties are liable to take back the vehicle  and pay a sum of Rs.4,60,300/- towards the value of the car as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service and other damages as prayed for with cost?

6.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that on 24.09.2009, she purchased the impugned i10 Hyundai car from the 2^nd opposite party, Dealer of the 1^st opposite party for a consideration of Rs.4,60,300/- as per Ex.A1, Tax Invoice issued by the 2^nd opposite party.   Further the contention of the complainant is that before purchasing the car, the complainant saw Ex.A2, advertisement of the opposite parties in clear terms that “No.1 Mileage 19.81 kmpl (ARAI). But the car gives only 6 KM/litrs. The complainant further contended that she purchased the car only for the purpose of saving mileage. The opposite parties after furnishing Ex.A2, advertisement appraised the complainant that the impugned car will give a minimum mileage of 14 kmpl in city.  But after driving the car with full tank fuel it gives only 6.3 kms.  The complainant produced the car with the opposite parties service station repeatedly for different types of check up including general check up and expended a sum of Rs.36,949/-.  But no documents filed before this Forum.  The opposite party filed Ex.B2 & Ex.B3 Service Report and bills admitting no way or the other about the poor mileage proves that the impugned car is having deficiency in consumption of fuel resulting poor mileage.  Further the contention of the complainant is that as per ARAI Certificate it is very clear that the impugned car is a typical one for Fuel Economy (under Standard Test Conditions) as per Ex.B1 ARAI  Certificate.  But it is an utter dismay that the impugned car gives rise to only 6.3 kmpl.  The opposite parties also has not come forward to explain the reason for such low mileage and rectification of defects result raising the fuel consumption after taking the vehicle by the opposite parties. The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.4,60,300/- towards the value of the car with compensation. 

7.     The contention of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is that the advertisement regarding the i10 Hyundai car and the mileage is made in a misleading manner by the complainant.   As if the opposite parties had promised that such mileage would be given by every vehicle irrespective of crucial factors such as the terrain of operation, skill of driver, vehicle maintenance, fuel quality etc will play a vital role in performance.  The advertisement of the opposite parties truly states that the performance and mileage of the vehicle in ARAI (Automotive Research Association of India) test conditions.  But the opposite parties 1 to 3 has miserable failed to produce the various test performed in the impugned car as per ARAI test; establishes the advertisement itself is in a misleading position amounts to deficiency in service.   Further, the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is that every vehicle manufacturer, before launching a new model vehicle into the market has to subject the vehicle to tests in compliance with Motor Vehicle Rules under guidance of ARAI namely emission test, fuel efficiency test etc are conducted by ARAI under standard test conditions and a Certificate will be issued subject to the specific conditions including a disclaimer that

“A. The values declared above are the extract of the result that have been obtained in a mandatory emission test specified in Rule 115 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 under controlled conditions using a reference fuel at an agency authorized by Rule 126 of the said Rules.  The values obtained by users will differ from these values due to infinite variables such as driving habits, road and traffic conditions, fuel quality, maintenance practices, loading pattern, ambient conditions and usual engineering tolerance on components and so on.

B. The values declared above have been obtained on one of the variants displayed in the make/ model. Users may obtain different values on other variants of this make/model.

C. Further, the vehicle manufacturer and its authorized dealer shall not be liable for any difference in fuel consumption values due to aforesaid variables and no claim shall lie thereon”.

But the opposite parties 1 to 3 till filing this written version none of the disclaimer condition has been given to the complainant.  It is also seen that the complainant submitted the vehicle for repeated services.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 has not explained the reason for such low mileage.   Muchless, lowest fuel consumption against the advertisement as well as ARAI Certificate.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is that the fuel efficiency figures are based on verified and certificate values, and not any imaginary or arbitrary value as the 1^st opposite party may choose.  But the impugned car is subject to poor mileage is admitted by the service persons also.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is that the complainant does not reveal the fact of service history.  But the opposite parties 1 to 3 themselves have filed Ex.B2, Service Report in detail showing the poor mileage.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,60,300/- being the value of the car after taking the car and a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,60,300/- (Rupees Four lakhs sixty thousand and three hundred only) being the value of the car after taking car and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 05^th day of July 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

		Copy of Invoice
		Copy of Advertisement of the 1st opposite party
		Copy of letter sent by the complainant
		Copy of letter sent by the complainant
		Copy of letter sent by the complainant
		Copy of legal notice sent by the complainant’s Counsel to the 1st opposite party
		Copy of returned cover

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 to 3 SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  

Ex.B1		Copy of ARAI Certificate
Ex.B2	10.11.2010	Copy of Service Reports
Ex.B3		Copy of bills for repairs

 

 

                              

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT